Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum. The dispute involved between the parties is that the complainant/respondent’s son about 15 years old was bitten by a -2- street dog on 12.6.1996. He was taken to the OPD of petitioner hospital. The doctors there examined him and advised the complainant to watch the dog which had bitten the boy for the next 10 days. Members of the family, however, could not trace out the dog inspite of their best efforts and they again visited the hospital on 18.6.1996 where he was given anti-rabies vaccine for 10 days between 18.6.1996 to 27.6.1996. On 06.8.1996 in the night, Dinanath started feeling unwell. Complainant called a doctor and as per his advice, removed the boy to ID Hospital, Kolkata on 07.8.1996 where the patient died of rabies on 09.8.1996. Petitioner filed the complaint CDF no.59/1996 which was dismissed by the District Forum on 30.9.1996. It was held that the complainant was not a Consumer as he did not hire any services for consideration as the treatment given to him was free of charge. Relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in AIR 1996 S.C. 550 (Indian Medical Assn. Vs. V. P. Shantha, (1995) 6 SCC 651), it was held that the complainant was not entitled to any relief. No appeal was filed against this order and the same attained finality. -3- On the directions of West Bengal Human Rights Commission, a Committee of Experts was constituted, which opined that there were defects in the procurement and system of preservation of the vaccine in the hospital. On the basis of the report of the experts, respondent/complainant filed the fresh complaint before the District Forum which was numbered as CDF 29/1998. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on 09.9.1998 by observing thus: “At the very outset we are to decide the point of law which touches the very root of this case. The petitioner filed another case in this Forum being CDF Case No.59/96 on the same cause of action and allegations against the same parties. That case was decided by us exparte on the point of maintainability. We held in that case that the petitioner is not a consumer as he did not hire the services of the hospital authorities for consideration and therefore he is not a consumer and hence not entitled to claim or get any relief under the Consumer Protection Act. The final order of that case was passed by us on 30.9.96 on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was reported in different law journals. That order passed by us was not challenged by the petitioner in any higher Forum and the same stands till date.” -4- Not satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, respondent filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been allowed by the impugned order and the petitioner has been directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2 Lac to the respondent for its failure to supply proper quality serum and also for not maintaining necessary infrastructure at the Sub-divisional Hospital from where the serum was supplied to the petitioner. Rs.5,000/- were awarded as costs. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the second complaint filed by the respondent was not maintainable as the earlier complaint filed by the respondent was adjudicated on merits; that the second compliant was barred by the principles of res-judicata. Although, it is a hard case and there seems to be deficiency on the part of the petitioner, but in view of the bar created by law that the second complaint is not maintainable and is barred by principle of res-judicata, the second complaint filed by the respondent is held to be not maintainable. Revision petition is allowed. Order passed by -5- the State Commission is set aside and that of the District Forum is restored. No costs. | 
